Digital Divide Response

     The failure of artists, in Claire Bishop's view, to address how digital technology and the advent of the internet affect our lives and surroundings, or conversely, the trend of using "retro" technologies and objects in works of art, is in my view a temporary one. As each generation reaches adulthood, there exists a de facto cultural vacuum which this generation has not yet been able to fill with cultural productions and the discourses that surround them. As the eldest members of this generation begin producing art, music, films, essays, novels, etc..., they are necessarily influenced by what their societies have produced in the past. Many of these older artists, looking at what is considered "cutting edge" at the moment, inevitably end up producing something which has its roots in the practice of artists of the former generation. However, as time progresses, and younger (creatively inclined) members of a generational cohort reach maturity and begin to produce work, they are less likely to look to the same artists and technologies as their immediate predecessors. What happens instead is a gradual shift of the source of inspiration from the previous generation and their technologies, to the beginning of the present generation and the technologies which have accompanied the emerging artists throughout their lives.
    This relationship between generations is present in many other areas of western, industrialized societies. In the realm of politics, the generational shift generally happens much later in the life of the members of the generations involved, and a strong generational cohort may produce several administrations, which can last many years (the Clinton and Bush administrations, both Baby Boomers, lasted for a total of 16 years). One reason why this relationship may seem skewed when considering the art world can be found when we examine art's relationship to the art market. Over the past 30 years, the prices commanded by the most popular artists have risen dramatically. People buying the art, who because they are rich also wield power, have an interest in, and the means to keep their art relevant. This can be achieved through coordinated sales to artificially increase the price of works (see Damien Hirst, http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/37270/), or by buying up media outlets in order to secure undue societal influence (see Rupert Murdoch, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/rupert-murdoch-australian-election-2013).
     The apparent lack of response to digital technologies may of course have its roots in other issues as well. The extremely rapid pace at which these technologies are being developed far exceeds the creative output of most, if not all artists, and the lack of availability of these technologies in many parts of the world obviously hinders many artists working there from employing them. But if change appears to be happening slowly here, it can almost certainly be chalked up to nostalgia and strategic investment banking.

Interesting book on generations:

Generations: the history of America's future, 1584 to 2069
Authors	William Strauss, Neil Howe